by Richard Ekman

Many organizations have published both expressions of sympathy for the victims of September 11 and statements about the significance of the events. CIC has largely resisted the impulse to interpret the events, placing emphasis instead on the obligation of colleges and universities, along with other institutions of society, to function as normally as possible under extreme circumstances. Most colleges and universities are continuing to prepare students for constructive roles in society, and many are using America's increased awareness of world affairs to teach more about the Middle East and Central Asia, Islam, and conflicts between principles that would ordinarily seem immutable—nonviolence versus self-defense, tolerance versus self-interest, and world responsibility versus national duty. These are familiar subjects for many teachers of history, political science, religion, sociology, literature, and philosophy. Their grim reemergence in everyday life is a reminder of the utility of the arts and sciences in addressing them.
    But as a "teachable moment" on campus, the aftermath of September 11 is proving to be problematic. One expects the full range of opinion on any subject to be evident in campus debate—given our encouragement of students to experiment with new ideas—but it is nonetheless surprising how many students and faculty members appear to believe not only that they need to learn more about the views espoused by terrorists (a reasonable objective, to be sure), but also that all ideas are equally valid, including those of terrorists. Because the terrorists' views are abhorrent by any moral standard and by most informed readings of the "lessons" of history, campus receptivity to the legitimacy of these ideas risks our public posture in arguing for the civic purposes of higher education.
  Understanding the worldview of terrorists, we must remember, is only the preliminary step to learning why it must be opposed. Edward Rothstein argues in a New York Timesop-ed piece (September 22) that postmodernist scholarship, which provides the underpinnings of much of what occurs in today's humanities classrooms, is largely to blame for students' disinclination to weigh the comparative validity of ideas. (A rebuttal by literary scholar Stanley Fish appears in the October 15 New York Times).
    Most CIC member colleges and universities take very seriously their purposeful stance on specific moral and civic values—sometimes derived from the beliefs of the religious denominations that founded and still influence them. And most CIC colleges offer a course of study that is grounded in the arts and sciences. Study that is steeped in both of these heritages, we tell the public, equips people with the capacity for sound judgment. CIC colleges and universities have also been in the vanguard of American higher education in building close campus-community connections, while alumni surveys often indicate that graduates of colleges that are clear about their moral, civic, and religious commitments are more likely to vote, to become involved in community organizations, and to make charitable donations.
    Yet surveys do not reveal that the failure to follow these traditions in depth and with rigor can produce other effects. Mere exposure to a course in politics, religion, philosophy, or history will not teach the ability to exercise good judgment or personal morality. When we set degree requirements, we recognize that an education in the liberal arts requires sustained work by the student if it is to succeed in producing the effects we claim for it.
    Let me provide an example from my own field, history. At least two syndromes of faulty student reasoning result from badly learned history. The first is to believe that the pattern of past events is predictive of future events. This simplistic use of history gives rise to narrowly preservationist views about questions of the day. In its worst form, it can lead to arrogant and glib assumptions about historical "destiny." A second syndrome that college history professors frequently see among undergraduates is a tendency to judge past events by the standards of the present. It is this "historicist" view, for example, that leads people to criticize the 18th century American founders because they did not assure women the right to vote in the Constitution.
    These syndromes of poorly learned history are recognizable today when students accept Osama bin Laden's argument about the logic of expelling European and American influences from the Middle East (Westerners violate pan-Arab "destiny"). But the syndromes are more difficult to identify when a student is confronted with conflicting "facts" and insufficient basis for nuanced judgment—for example, on the one hand, leading scholars of Islam and clerical leaders in the Middle East tell us that bin Laden is not representative of Islam, which does not condone the killing of innocent people, while, on the other hand, large segments of the population of the region accept bin Laden's view as consistent with the teachings of Islam. This seeming contradiction refreshes the debate over political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizationswhich, when it appeared only a few years ago, seemed to offer such a persuasive explanation for puzzling geopolitical conflicts by suggesting that religious and cultural differences, not political boundaries, are most fundamental.
    Many colleges are now beginning to insert Islam and the Middle East into
an already crowded curriculum so American students can judge for themselves. (Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peopleoffers one of the best one-volume treatments.) Equally needed is greater depth in teaching about Western traditions. While most teachers know that it can be pedagogically effective to juxtapose conflicting American actions or principles, the challenge is to go beyond appealing to students' fascination with inconsistencies—to apply skills of analysis and judgment to ambiguous phenomena and to show how an appreciation of both Western and non-Western values can be drawn from studying both achievements and failures of nations as well as individuals.
    A similar brief could be written for the utility of any of the disciplines of the humanities and social sciences in the curriculum. As philosopher Martha Nussbaum notes in Cultivating Humanity,"All courses dealing with cross-cultural issues are enriched by Socratic examination of the relativist values that students frequently bring
to the course." Each discipline has a methodology for giving students competence in the exercise of judgment, and each can apply its axioms to students' current need to understand better what makes one idea more valid than another.
    Colleges and universities can best serve the national interest by encouraging thought that lies between the extremes of jingoism and uncritical study. Joseph M. Knippenberg, who teaches at Oglethorpe University (GA), has demonstrated this well for classical political thought in his recent essay in Wabash College's (IN) Liberal Arts Online. In the coming days, let us hope that there will be many more efforts by colleges and universities to help students draw complex lessons from current events.

Independent
The Council of Independent Colleges
One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 320 • Washington, DC 20036
tel: (202) 466-7230 • Fax: (202) 466-7238 • e-mail: cic@cic.nche.edu • www.cic.edu

Last updated: November 26, 2001
Copyright © 2001 The Council of Independent Colleges